027.22 

U584SO 


Withdrawn  fo 


m°?>. 

LclESO^i 

Wiring 


TUI  ■  |ttg|f|g 


mao a 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/musicdivisionoflOOsonn 


OF  THE 

U  N  I  VLRSITY 
Of  ILLINOIS 

027.22 

U584S0 


*7  3> 


V 


so 


[Reprinted,  by  perpiission,  from  the  Proceedings  of  the  Music  Teache/s,’ 
Association  for  1908.] 


THE  MUSIC  DIVISION  OF  THE  LIBRARY  OF 
CONGRESS 

METHODS,  POLICIES  AND  RESOURCES 
O.  G.  SONNECK 
Chief  of  the  Division 

1U,  3. 

The  Library  of  Congress  was  founded  in  1800  with  an  ap¬ 
propriation  of  a  lump  sum  of  $5,000  for  the  purchase  of  books. 
About  3,000  volumes  had  been  accumulated  by  1814,  when  the 
Library  was  destroyed  during  the  British  attack  of  Washing¬ 
ton.  Then  Thomas  Jefferson’s  collection  of  about  7,000 
volumes  was  acquired  by  our  government,  and  the  collections 
had  increased  to  55,000  volumes,  when  in  1851  the  Library 
was  again  in  part  destroyed  by  fire  in  the  Capitol.  Not  more 
than  about  20,000  volumes  were  saved.  Today,  or  rather  at 
the  end  of  the  fiscal  year  1908  (June  30),  the  Library  of  Con¬ 
gress  contains  about  two  millions  and  a  half  of  books,  pamph¬ 
lets,  manuscripts,  maps,  prints  and  pieces  of  music.  More 
than  four  hundred  and  fifty  persons  are  employed  in  this 
palace  of  books;  the  annual  appropriations  for  the  increase 
of  the  collections  have  grown  from  $1,000  in  1818  to  more 
than  $100,000,  and  the  total  appropriations,  for  all  purposes, 
now  reach  the  colossal  sum  of  nearly  $800,000. 

These  figures  bear  a  message.  They  imply  a  vast  and 
complicated  scale  of  operations,  extraordinary  problems  for 
administrative  genius  and  opportunities  for  systematic  de¬ 
velopment  probably  not  equalled  in  any  other  national  li¬ 
brary.  I  say,  national  library,  for  though  originally  founded 
as  a  Library  for  Congress  and  still  fully  maintaining  this 
character,  the  Library  of  Congress  has  gradually  become,  if 
not  in  name,  at  least  in  fact,  policy  and  by  circumstances  our 
National  Library.  Historically  considered,  this  tendency  was 
made  possible  when,  on  August  10th.  1846,  an  act  of  Congress 


L 


\  ^  S' 


:2  Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A.,  igo8 

directed  that  one  copy  of  each  copyrighted  book,  map,  musi¬ 
cal  composition,  etc.,  should  be  delivered  to  the  Librarian  of 
Congress.  It  is  notorious  that  this  far  reaching  act  could  not 
be  properly  enforced  until  the  passage  of  the  copyright  law  of 
1870  placed  the  copyright  business  under  the  Librarian  of 
Congress,  called  for  the  deposit  in  the  Library  of  two  copies 
of  each  copyrighted  article  and  provided  for  the  removal  of 
copyright  deposits  from  the  Patent  Office  and  from  the 
United  States  district  courts.  Thus  the  Library  of  Congress 
was  enabled  to  exercise  one  main  function  of  a  national  li¬ 
brary,  namely,  in  the  words  of  Herbert  Putnam,  Librarian  of 
Congress  since  1899,  “  so  far  as  possible,  to  preserve  a  con¬ 
tinuous  and  unbroken  exhibit  of  at  least  the  important  issues 
of  the  American  press.”  Of  great  importance  was  further 
the  international  copyright  act  of  March  3d,  1891,  which  made 
it  possible  for  foreign  authors  to  obtain  under  certain  restric¬ 
tions  copyright  in  the  United  States  upon  the  same  terms  as 
native  authors,  except  that  the  fee  for  entry  in  the  case  of 
foreigners  is  double  that  for  the  native  author,  $1.00  instead 
of  50  cents.  Under  the  operation  of  this  provision  the  privi¬ 
leges  of  copyright  in  the  United  States  have  been  extended 
to  the  authors  (including  the  composers,  of  course)  of  many 
European  countries.  The  effect  of  this  international  copy¬ 
right  act  was  particularly  far  reaching  on  the  musical  side  of 
the  Library  of  Congress,  inasmuch  as  it  allowed  European 
composers  to  deposit  for  purpose  of  copyright  protection  two 
copies  of  every  musical  composition  printed  abroad,  whereas 
books  proper  (with  certain  modifications)  cannot  be  copy¬ 
righted  here  unless  printed  in  the  United  States. 

Not  until  the  removal  of  the  Library  of  Congress  in  1897 
from  the  Capitol  to  the  new  building  was  a  special  Music 
Division  created,  and  I  hasten  to  add  that  its  present  location 
and  equipment  are  still  temporary.  The  collection  accumu¬ 
lated  prior  to  1897  was  neither  accessioned,  classified,  cata¬ 
logued,  nor  made  accessible.  The  labors  of  the  division  during 
the  four  years  after  the  removal  were  largely  to  reduce  the 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress  3 

material  to  order  and  make  it  available  for  use.  But  the  cur- 
cent  accessions,  then  numbering  already  more  than  16,000 
items  a  year,  had  also  to  be  incorporated,  and  no  one  can 
appreciate  better  than  I  the  task  confronting  my  predecessor 
to  infuse  a  semblance  of  life  into  a  dead  mass  of  several  hun¬ 
dred  thousand  pieces  of  music.  The  present  method  of  classi¬ 
fication  and  cataloguing,  the  policy  and  manner  of  systematic 
development,  the  broader  scope  of  usefulness  date  from  the  re¬ 
organization  of  the  Music  Division  in  1902,  when  also  all  the 
books  on  music  and  all  musical  manuscripts,  in  short  every¬ 
thing  of  primarily  musical  interest  were  put  under  the  custody 
of  this  division. 

Aside  from  gifts,  international  exchanges  through  the 
Smithsonian  Institution  and  other  minor  sources,  the  accessions 
to  our  Music  Division  accrue  mainly  through  copyright  and 
purchase.  After  the  two  copies  of  a  musical  composition  de¬ 
posited  for  copyright  have  been  recorded  in  the  Copyright 
Office,  copy  A  is  filed  in  the  archives  of  that  division,  and 
copy  B  is  turned  over  to  the  Music  Division.  Material  that 
has  been  purchased  comes  to  this  division  from  the  Order 
Division,  where  all  commercial  accounts  are  kept.  After  re¬ 
ceipt  in  the  Music  Division,  the  books  on  music  and  the  music 
proper  are  accessioned  as  to  source  (copyright,  purchase,  gift, 
etc.),  and  classified  according  to  a  scheme  of  classification 
which  was  devised  and  adopted  after  a  critical  examination  of 
the  schemes  in  force  in  the  principal  American  and  European 
libraries  and  with  a  view  to  the  particular  needs  of  the  Library 
of  Congress.  There  is  nothing  very  startling  about  this 
scheme,  which  has  been  printed  as  a  book  of  112  pages,  except 
its  minuteness  and  general  disposition.  We  divide  the  collec¬ 
tions  into  three  large  groups,  Music,  represented  by  the  letter 
M,  Literature  of  music  (all  biographical,  bibliographical,  his¬ 
torical,  philosophical,  etc.,  books  and  pa'mphlets  on  music), 
represented  by  the  letters  ML,  and  all  theoretical  or  technical 
material,  represented  by  the  letters  MT.  This  last  group  in¬ 
cludes  not  only  books  on  harmony,  counterpoint,  pianoforte 

281624^^  -  - 


4 


Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A.,  igo8 


methods,  etc.,  but  also  all  purely  instructive  music  as  Etudes 
and  instructive  (teaching)  editions,  for  instance  of  Beetho¬ 
ven’s  sonatas.  Therein  our  classification  differs  materially 
from  most  schemes,  which  distinguish  only  between  music  and 
books  on  music  of  every  description.  This  difference  has  led 
to  a  misunderstanding  of  our  resources  when  a  comparison 
was  made  between  our  and  other  collections  of  books  on  music. 
If  the  customary  distinction  is  made  the  basis  of  comparison, 
naturally  a  substantial  part  of  our  MT  section  would  have 
to  be  added  to  the  ML  section  with  the  result  that  instead  of 
possessing  about  8,000  books  on  music,  the  Library  of  Con¬ 
gress  really  possesses  about  12,000. 

The  three  main  sections  are  systematically  and  logically 
subdivided,  proceeding  from  general  to  special,  by  forms,  in¬ 
struments,  subjects,  periods,  countries,  as  the  grouping  would 
suggest  itself  with  slight  differences  of  opinion  to  every  musi¬ 
cian  and  musical  scholar.  Each  subdivision  is  represented  by 
a  numerical  symbol,  the  sequence  of  numbers  bearing,  as  far 
as  possible,  some  logical  relation  to  the  subject  matter  to 
which  they  have  been  assigned.  Thus,  for  instance,  M  1500 
means  Full  scores  of  operas,  M  1503  means  vocal  scores  of 
operas,  M  2000  Full  scores  of  oratorios,  M  2003  vocal  scores 
or  oratorios.  At  first  sight  the  minuteness  of  the  scheme  be¬ 
wilders,  but  it  is  in  keeping  with  the  bewildering  extent  and 
variety  of  the  collections  and  it  is  planned  to  provide  for  future 
as  well  as  for  present  needs.  Upon  examination  it  will  be 
found  that  this  apparently  rigid  scheme  is  elastic,  permits  both 
contraction  and  expansion  and  may,  therefore,  be  used  with 
convenient  modifications  in  smaller,  or  if  such  exist,  larger 
collections.  For  instance,  a  small  library  instead  of  using 
our  numerous  subdivisions  with  the  corresponding  numerous 
class  numbers  for  books  on  the  history  of  opera,  would  keep 
all  such  books  alphabetically  arranged  by  author  under  our 
number  ML  1700,  regardless  of  country,  period,  etc.,  We, 
ourselves,  I  hasten  to  add,  do  not  use  more  subdivisions  than 
are  considered  convenient  for  our  purposes,  the  others  are 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress  5 

simply  provisional.  While  to  a  novice  the  scheme  may  look 
somewhat  complicated  on  paper,  we  have  found  it  to  be  com¬ 
paratively  simple  in  application,  and  while  improvements  have 
suggested  themselves  from  time  to  time,  some  too  late  for  in¬ 
sertion,  the  scheme  fortunately  has,  on  the  whole,  stood  the 
test  of  time  and  strain.  At  any  rate,  it  is  not  merely  a  theo¬ 
retical  scheme  on  paper,  as  some  schemes  are.  It  is  really  ap¬ 
plied.  That  means,  the  books  and  the  music  are  really  filed 
on  the  shelves  according  to  this  scheme,  regardless  of  size, 
bulk  or  date  of  acquisition.  In  other  words,  all  vocal  scores 
of  oratorios,  all  symphonies,  all  biographies,  all  books  on  har¬ 
mony,  and  so  forth,  stand  together  on  the  shelves  in  the  se¬ 
quence  of  the  scheme.  The  advantages  of  such  a  method  for 
supplying  a  reader  with  as  much  material  as  possible  in  the 
shortest  possible  time  would  appear  to  be  obvious,  but  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  method  is  not  in  use  everywhere,  and  in 
some  important  institutions  books  and  music  are  still  shelved 
regardless  of  their  contents  merely  by  size  or  date  of  accession. 
Our  method  has  some  further  advantages,  but  I  shall  men¬ 
tion  only  one  which  is  more  or  less  characteristic  of  the 
Library  of  Congress.  Our  policy  is  to  give  responsible,  serious 
students  access  to  the  shelves.  This  privilege  would  be  of  no 
earthly  use  unless  books  on  the  subject  in  which  a  person  is 
interested,  were  kept  in  one  particular  group.  The  applied 
scheme  of  classification  together  with  this  privilege  will  ob¬ 
viously  save  a  student  much  time,  and  the  satisfaction  of  thus 
having  saved  him  much  time  more  than  outweighs  the  fact 
that  he  occasionally  turns  a  book  upside  down  or  forgets  to 
replace  it  at  all. 

After  all  is  said,  the  opponents  of  a  subject  classification 
of  music,  which  the  Library  of  Congress  champions,  have 
only  one  argument  to  offer  which  deserves  serious  considera¬ 
tion.  It  is  this.  We  do  not  keep  all  the  works  by  one  com¬ 
poser  together,  but  we  separate  them  according  to  form,  in¬ 
strumental  combination  and  so  forth.  Thus  the  works  of  Raff, 
for  instance,  will  not  be  found  in  one  place  under  Raff,  but  his 


6 


Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A.,  igo8 


operas  are  shelved  under  Raff  with  all  other  operas,  his  sym¬ 
phonies,  songs,  etc.,  with  the  symphonies,  songs,  etc.,  of  other 
composers.  I  do  not  know  but  that  the  other  scheme  would 
work  better  in  a  small  or  medium-sized  collection,  but  in  a 
huge  collection,  like  ours,  it  probably  would  not  for  certain 
physical  and  technical  reasons.  The  whole  matter  is  one  of 
preference,  it  depends  upon  the  answer  to  the  hypothetical 
question:  Are  musical  readers  more  interested  in  studying 
chamber  music,  songs,  oratorios  by  different  masters,  or  in 
studying  the  chamber  music,  songs,  oratorios  by  one  master? 
The  answer  is  just  as  problematic  as  the  question  is  hy¬ 
pothetical. 

After  a  book  or  composition  is  classified  and  before  it  is 
bound  and  placed  on  the  shelves,  it  must  be  catalogued.  All 
books  on  music  are  turned  over  for  this  purpose  to  the  ex¬ 
perts  of  the  Catalogue  Division.  Their  catalogue  cards  are 
then  printed  and  supplied  to  us  by  the  Card  Distribution 
Section  for  author  and  subject  entries,  and,  if  a  book  is 
a  collection  of  essays,  it  may  happen  that  thirty  or  more 
cards  are  filed  in  the  catalogue  for  one  single  book.  After 
years  of  steady  work  the  Catalogue  Division  has  finished  cata¬ 
loguing  all  our  books  on  music,  but  it  must  be  noted  that  this 
catalogue  exists  in  form  of  printed  cards  only,  not  in  book 
form,  as  some  inquirers  appear  to  think. 

Music  proper  is  not  catalogued  in  the  Catalogue  Division 
but  in  the  Music  Division,  and  no  cards  are  printed  for  music 
of  any  kind.  This  might  seem  to  be  an  anomaly,  yet  the  ex¬ 
planation  is  simple.  Exactly  because  our  catalogue  experts 
are  expected  to  work  with  precision  and  accuracy,  the  task  of 
handling  about  20,000  musical  compositions  yearly,  in  addi¬ 
tion  to  many  thousands  of  books,  would  be  physically  impos¬ 
sible.  Consequently  we  of  the  Music  Division  are  forced  to 
struggle  with  the  problem  best  as  our  inadequate  force  of  six 
persons  can.  We  have  evolved  a  set  of  cataloguing  rules 
which  answer  our  needs  and  all  practical  purposes.  In  most 
cases  two  cards  suffice,  one  for  the  composer,  the  other  for 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress  7 


the  form  or  combination.  In  the  case  of  operas,  songs,  etc., 
we  also  enter  a  shorter  card  under  the  title,  so  that  generally 
not  more  than  three  cards  are  written.  We  abstain  from 
analyzing  the  contents  of  collections,  and  we  bestow  analytical 
attention  generally  only  on  such  volumes  as  those  of  the  dif¬ 
ferent  “  Denkmaler.” 

Formerly  the  Catalogue  of  Copyright  Entries,  issued  by 
the  Copyright  Office,  was  printed  in  such  a  form  that  to  use 
it  even  as  a  current  index  to  composers  was  impossible.  Con¬ 
sequently  we  of  the  Music  Division  made  desperate  efforts  to 
catalogue  every  copyrighted  piece  of  music  that  came  to  us. 
Since,  however,  two  years  ago  the  form  of  this  monthly  bulle¬ 
tin  was  changed  so  that  any  copyrighted  piece  may  be  traced 
either  under  composer  or  title,  we  catalogue  in  the  Music  Divi¬ 
sion  only  such  compositions,  or  rather  classes  of  compositions, 
that  in  our  judgment  warrant  the  labor  involved,  and,  of 
course,  this  rule  applies  also  to  every  piece  of  purchased  music, 
inasmuch  as  we  do  not  buy  music  that  is  not  desirable.  The 
rest  is  filed  on  the  shelves  according  to  the  classification 
scheme.  For  this  material  the  Copyright  Catalogue  is  pre¬ 
sumed  to  be  a  sufficient  guide.  Nor  do  we  really  need  such  a 
guide,  because  the  scheme  of  classification  in  itself  acts  as 
such  and  allows  us  to  find  every  piece  of  music  whether  cata¬ 
logued  by  us  or  not. 

This  obliging  feature  of  the  classification  scheme  is  our 
salvation  and  that  of  the  public,  because  more  than  one-half 
of  our  music  collections  remain  uncatalogued.  The  catalogue 
is  complete  only  for  the  material  received  since  1897,  and  in 
its  present  form  of  entry  only  for  the  material  received  since 
1902,  including  such  arrears  as  we  have  been  able  to  con¬ 
sider  from  time  to  time.  Even  for  this  material  a  complete 
catalogue  by  subject  or  form  does  not  exist.  We  are  bending 
all  our  efforts  towards  completing  the  subject  catalogue  at 
least  for  the  most  important  classes  (such  as  in  orchestral  and 
chamber  music),  but  I  fear  that  we  have  a  Tantalus  task  be¬ 
fore  us.  Only  for  one  class  is  our  subject  catalogue  really 


8 


Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A.,  igo8 


complete,  for  our  collection  of  full  scores  of  operas,  and  it  is 
the  only  branch  of  our  collections  of  which  so  far  the  cata¬ 
logue  has  been  printed  in  book  form.  One  other  part  of  our 
catalogue  has  aroused  interest,  in  Europe  perhaps  more  than 
in  America.  Every  number  of  currently  received  musical 
magazines  is  analyzed  by  me  personally  and  subject  cards  for 
every  article  thus  analyzed  are  written  by  me  (yearly  about 
4,000)  and  entered  in  a  separate  catalogue.  As  we  receive 
currently  about  ninety  musical  magazines,  of  which  fifty  im¬ 
portant  European,  the  Library  of  Congress  possesses  an  in¬ 
dex  to  current  periodical  literature  such  as  perhaps  no  other 
institution  can  boast.  Not  only  this,  but  gradually  back  sets 
are  being  taken  up  and  the  beginning  has  been  made  to  cata¬ 
logue  articles  on  music  in  the  non-musical  American  maga¬ 
zines  in  greater  numbers  than  appear  in  Poole’s  Index  and 
more  systematically  .  The  value  of  what  has  been  done  already 
is  recognized  by  European  scholars,  as  well  as  by  American, 
and  it  is  realized  that  by  sheer  necessity  some  day  this  Periodi¬ 
cal  Index  of  the  Library  of  Congress  will  become  invaluable, 
indeed  one  of  the  principal  assets  of  the  Music  Division. 

After  a  book  has  gone  through  these  and  sundry  other 
processes  of  library  anatomy,  it  is  at  last  ready  for  use,  and 
“  the  purpose  of  the  administration  is  the  freest  possible  use 
of  the  books  consistent  with  their  safety ;  and  the  widest  pos¬ 
sible  use  consistent  with  the  convenience  of  Congress.”  Regu¬ 
lations  limiting  use  are  adopted  very  sparingly  and  only  as 
experience  proves  them  to  be  necessary.  For  instance,  there  is 
no  limit  to  the  number  of  books  a  reader  may  draw  for  refer¬ 
ence  use,  but  a  certain  limit,  of  course,  governs  the  home  use. 
This  itself,  as  the  Library  of  Congress  is  in  principle  a 
reference,  not  a  circulating  library,  is  restricted  to  persons 
designated  by  law,  such  as  members  of  both  branches  of  Con¬ 
gress  and  of  the  diplomatic  corps,  but  the  Librarian  has  the 
power  (and  he  is  known  to  exercise  this  discretionary  power 
with  liberality)  to  extend  the  privilege  to  persons  engaged  in 
research  that  is  likely  to  widen  the  boundaries  of  human 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress  9 


knowledge.  This  applies  also  to  the  Music  Division,  and  he 
does  not  hesitate  to  include,  upon  proper  and  convincing  ap¬ 
plication,  heads  of  music  schools,  conductors  of  important 
musical  organizations,  prominent  local  musicians,  who  for 
special  reasons  and  for  a  specified  time  need  the  home  use  of 
certain  material  that  is  to  be  had  only  at  the  Library  of  Con¬ 
gress  or  is  too  expensive  for  a  musician’s  private  library,  or 
cannot  be  obtained  at  all  at  the  music  stores.  Resident  musi¬ 
cians  are,  of  course,  expected  to  consult  very  rare  items  at  the 
Library,  which  is  open  to  readers  from  9  a.  m.  to  10  p.  m.  on 
week  days  and  from  2  p.  m.  to  10  p.  m.  on  Sundays  and  most 
legal  holidays.  For  the  convenience  of  our  music  readers  a 
pianoforte  has  been  installed  and  is  used  frequently.  Not,  of 
course,  for  finger  exercises,  but  for  prima  vista  reading  pur¬ 
poses.  This  distinction,  by  the  way,  could  not  at  first  be  made 
clear  to  certain  of  our  patrons,  and  some  of  the  tricks  in¬ 
vented  by  that  imperishable  class  of  people  who  will  grab  the 
whole  hand  when  a  finger  is  offered,  were  really  amusing. 
One  ingenious  future  Paderewski,  for  instance,  asked  osten¬ 
sibly  for  a  Beethoven  sonata,  placed  it  on  the  piano  and  glee¬ 
fully  practiced  a  Czerny  etude.  Non-resident  musicians  en¬ 
gaged  in  such  serious  research  as  defined  by  the  Librarian, 
may  occasionally  avail  themselves  of  our  resources  through 
what  is  called  the  system  of  inter-library-loan.  That  is,  they 
apply  to  their  local  library" ;  this,  in  turn,  applies  to  us  and  we 
send  the  material  to  that  particular  library  for  the  applicant’s 
use  at  his  expense,  but  not  to  him  personally.  It  goes  without 
saying,  of  course,  that  we  do  not  forward  musical  books  or 
music  such  as  it  is  the  duty  of  his  local  library  to  supply.  In 
this  manner,  we  are  glad  to  assist  quite  often  some  well  known 
scholars  of  Boston,  New  York  and  other  cities.  Indeed,  in  the 
inter-library-loan  we  see  one  of  the  vital  duties  and  functions 
of  our  National  Library. 

As  to  types  of  use  and  users,  it  would  be  difficult  to  classify 
them,  or  to  point  out  such  as  do  not  frequent  other  libraries 
in  America.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  some  seek  information  on 


IO 


Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A.,  igo8 


points  of  musical  technique,  others  on  bibliography,  history  or 
esthetics,  on  national  songs,  on  the  finer  distinctions  between 
the  different  editions  of  a  master’s  works,  on  questions  of 
copyright,  on  formation  and  management  of  libraries,  on  prices 
of  rarities,  on  best  methods  for  music  in  schools,  etc.,  etc. 
In  short,  a  variety  of  subjects  approached  as  the  case  may  be 
either  from  the  standpoint  and  with  the  interest  and  methods 
of  the  business  man,  the  lawyer,  the  person  desirous  of  musi¬ 
cal  culture,  the  critic,  the  scholar,  the  music  teacher,  the  con¬ 
ductor  or  the  “  mere  ”  musician.  In  addition  to  the  bona  fide 
reader,  we,  too,  deal  with  a  large  number  of  persons  who 
merely  ask  questions,,  either  in  person  or  by  letter.  As  far  as 
the  Library  may  be  expected  to  answer  them  at  all,  we  do  so 
promptly  and  to  the  best  of  our  ability.  Generally  the  in¬ 
quiries  pertain  to  good  or  best  books  on  special  subjects  or  to 
preferably  bibliographical  and  historical  facts.  If  not  requir¬ 
ing  too  elaborate  research,  every  librarian  who  considers  him¬ 
self  first  a  friend  of  the  public  and  second  a  Cerberus  of  books, 
will  answer  gladly  all  inquiries  that  reach  him.  We  draw  a 
diplomatic  line,  however,  if  we  are  asked  to  furnish  articles 
ready  made  for  club  use  or  to  give  a  complete  list,  with  prices, 
of  all  the  works  of  Bach  or  to  trace  the  first  composer  guilty 
of  consecutive  fifths.  The  extent  of  these  legitimate  and  ille¬ 
gitimate  inquiries  has  not  been  made  a  matter  of  statistics 
here,  nor  do  we  lay  much  stress  on  checking  pedantically  the 
number  of  real  readers  or  the  number  and  authors  of  books 
used.  We  hold  that  not  the  quantity  of  use  counts,  but  the 
result,  the  effect  of  use.  Still,  it  may  be  interesting,  as  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  comparison,  to  learn  that  we  supply  annually  about 
16,000  books,  pamphlets  and  compositions  to  some  3,500 
readers.  Considering  that  Washington,  a  city  of  about  350,- 
000  inhabitants,  is  not  yet  one  of  our  main  musical  centers  and 
that  for  obvious  reasons  practically  only  two-thirds  of  the 
population  really  count,  this  use  of  our  Music  Division  is  con¬ 
siderable  and  gratifying. 

Were  the  Capital  of  the  United  States  located  at  one  of  the 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress  1 1 

main  musical  centers  of  our  country,  possibly  the  Music  Divi¬ 
sion  would  be  used  to  a  far  greater  extent.  But  since  the 
Library  of  Congress  is  located  at  Washington,  and  since  every 
American  now  looks  to  the  Library  of  Congress  as  to  our 
National  Library,  this  question  of  relative  use  certainly  does 
not  enter  into  the  problem  of  how  far  the  musical  collections  of 
our  National  Library  should  be  developed.  Logically,  if  a 
special  music  division  was  created  in  our  National  Library,  it 
should  at  least  be  made  worthy  of  being  a  special  division  in  a 
national  library  so  that  the  musicians  of  our  country  will  take 
a  reasonable  professional  interest  in  the  collections. 

On  this  premise  a  policy  of  systematic  development  was 
outlined  in  1902,  and  more  correctly  on  the  premise  that  in 
music,  too,  the  Library  of  Congress,  as  a  national  library,  ex¬ 
ercises  functions  differing  from  those  of  a  State,  municipal  or 
college  library.  At  least  in  theory,  and  whether  these  func¬ 
tions  pertain  to  facilities  for  reference  or  research.  Briefly 
stated,  the  Library  of  Congress  aims  at  a  reasonably  compre¬ 
hensive  collection  of  material  that  bears  in  any  direction  on 
music  in  America,  and  more  particularly  on  American  music. 
What  the  Library  of  Congress  attempts  beyond  this,  is  exactly 
what  any  other  large  institution  would  attempt  to  do  which 
realizes  that  the  art  of  music  is  and  always  has  been  a  very 
essential  factor  and  feature  of  civilization. 

The  starting  point  of  our  policy  also  clearly  suggests  the 
characteristic  difference  between  the  Library  of  Congress  and 
the  national  libraries  of  Europe.  Their  interest  both  in 
American  music  and  music  in  America  is  slight,  except  in  so 
far  as  American  composers,  methods  or  conditions  have  be¬ 
come  or  will  become  of  international  interest.  On  the  other 
hand,  while  American  music,  as  the  product  of  American 
brain  and  press,  is  deemed  to  be  of  paramount  importance  in 
our  National  Library,  yet  the  peculiar  development  and  status 
of  music  in  America,  a  reflex  of  music  in  Europe,  compels 
the  Library  of  Congress  to  collect  the  musical  product  of 
European  brain  and  press  very  much  in  the  same  manner  as 


UNIVERSITY  OF 
ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 


12  Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A.,  igo8 

European  libraries  do  or  would  like  to  do.  The  difference  in 
attitude  is  merely  one  of  degree  and  the  boundary  line  of  com¬ 
petition  begins  where  the  community  of  historical  interests 
stops.  Roughly  speaking,  about  the  year  1700. 

For  this  reason,  the  Library  of  Congress  does  not  at 
present  and  as  a  rule  enter  into  competition  with  European 
institutions  with  reference  to  music,  published  or  manuscript, 
before  1700.  Any  such  attempt  would  clearly  tend  to  scatter 
the  scarce  and  costly  works  of  the  old  masters  still  further 
and  give  undue  prominence  to  a  selfish  museum  of  costly  relics 
policy  over  the  best  interests  of  the  scholar.  What  sense 
would  there  be,  for  instance,  in  paying  heavily  for  possibly 
unique  copies  of  original  editions  of  a  few  works  by  Pales¬ 
trina,  and  thus  possibly  prevent  some  European  institution 
from  putting  before  the  Palestrina  specialist  a  full  set  of  his 
works  ?  Such  a  set  or  even  a  collection  of  the  original  editions 
representative  enough  to  be  of  any  practical  use  to  the  Ameri¬ 
can  scholar,  the  Library  of  Congress  at  this  late  date  could 
never  hope  to  acquire,  even  if  its  entire  appropriation  were 
given  to  the  Music  Division.  If  such  works  are  of  great  in¬ 
terest  in  some  other  direction,  let  us  say,  as  characteristic 
and  sufficiently  illustrative  specimens  of  early  music  printing, 
it  is  part  of  our  policy  to  make  exceptions  to  our  rule,  and 
they  are  frequent,  of  course,  as  concerns  early  English 
music.  Nor  do  we  turn  our  back  pedantically  on  recognized 
musical  landmarks  if  their  price  is  at  all  within  the  means 
of  a  public  institution.  Therefore,  we  did  not  hesitate  to 
buy  a  fine  copy  of  Caccini’s  “  Nuove  Musiche.”  But  on  the 
whole,  the  Library  of  Congress  contents  itself  at  present,  so 
far  as  music  before  1700  is  concerned,  with  acquiring  it  as 
reprinted  principally  in  the  splendid  historical  subscription 
publications  undertaken  by  the  foreign  governments,  learned 
societies  and  firms  like  Breitkopf  &  Hartel.  It  is  different 
with  the  old  printed  books  on  music.  In  the  interest  of  the 
American  scholar,  the  Library  acquires  the  originals  exten¬ 
sively  because  extremely  few  of  these  books  have  been  re- 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress  13 

printed  and  because  it  is  still  entirely  feasible  to  form  a  repre¬ 
sentative  collection  at  a  reasonable  cost. 

Beginning  with  the  eighteenth  century,  the  Library  of  Con¬ 
gress  aims  at  a  collection  of  music  and  books  on  music  suffi¬ 
ciently  comprehensive  to  ultimately  release  the  American 
scholar  of  the  necessity  of  consulting  European  libraries,  ex¬ 
cept  for  research  not  bearing  directly  or  indirectly  on  music 
in  America  as  a  reflex  of  music  in  Europe.  This  involves  the 
policy  to  be  inclusive  rather  than  exclusive  in  collecting  char¬ 
acteristic  works  of  any  form,  first,  by  masters  known  at  any 
time  to  the  American  public ;  second,  by  those  not  known  here 
but  having  an  evolutional  relation  to  them ;  third,  by  all 
masters  not  affected  by  this  distinction,  but  who  are  essential 
for  a  proper  historical  perspective.  We  also  hold  it  to  be  a 
sound  principle  of  development  that  by  generously  considering 
the  present,  we  prepare  best  for  the  usefulness  of  the  collec¬ 
tions  to  the  future  historians  for  whom  our  perhaps  now  com¬ 
monplace  present  will  be  a  fascinating  past.  Strange  to  say, 
this  obviously  correct  attitude  is  not  shared  by  all  my  Euro¬ 
pean  colleagues,  but  I  believe  to  have  driven  the  argument 
home  when  I  had  occasion  to  present  my  theories  of  methodi¬ 
cal  development  of  musical  libraries ,  before  the  congress  of 
the  I.  M.  G.  at  Basle  in  1906. 

These  are  the  main,  one  might  say,  the  philosophical  prin¬ 
ciples  governing  our  policy  of  systematic  development,  but, 
of  course,  any  number  of  minor  theoretical  and  practical  con¬ 
siderations  enter  into  the  problem.  For  instance,  as  the  Li¬ 
brary  of  Congress  is  a  reference  and  research,  not  a  cir¬ 
culating  or  conservatory  library,  scores  have  precedence  over 
orchestral  parts.  The  latter  are  acquired  as  a  rule  only  if 
scores  do  not  exist,  as,  for  instance,  of  most  symphonies  of  the 
early  nineteenth  century.  Similar  considerations  govern  the 
acquisition  of  arrangements  with  exception  of  vocal  or  piano¬ 
forte  scores,  which  very  frequently  must  take  the  place  of 
scores  if  such  do  not  exist  or  are  too  expensive  to  warrant 
the  purchase  of  a  full  score  of  works  neither  artistically  nor 


14 


Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A.,  igo8 


historically  very  important.  In  addition,  of  course,  their  use¬ 
fulness  in  breeding  familiarity  with  the  great  operas  or  ora¬ 
torios  is  obvious.  If  not  to  be  had  in  good  printed  editions,  we 
make  it  a  point  to  acquire  important  works  in  contemporary 
manuscript  copies,  transcripts  made  specially  for  the  Library 
of  Congress,  or,  if  preferable,  in  photographic  reproductions. 
Nor  does  this  policy  stop  at  older  works,  as  we  occasionally 
were  a  copy,  not  the  autograph.  And  after  all,  what  would 
a  sincere  interest  in  autographs  of  the  great  masters  help  up, 
have  important  modern  works  transcribed  that  are  not  to  be 
had  in  printed  scores,  as,  for  instance,  Heinrich  von  Herzogen- 
berg’s  beautiful  “  Erntefeier.”  On  the  other  hand,  we  feign 
to  take  no  interest  in  musical  autographs  except  of  desirable 
works  which  exist  in  no  other  form,  may  be  had  at  a  price 
slightly  higher  than  a  manuscript  copy  or  which  come  our 
way,  as  has  really  happened,  on  the  presumption  that  they 
if  a  letter  of  Wagner  costs  several  hundred  and  a  Beethoven 
sonata  fetches  40,000  marks?  You  all  know  the  fable  of  the 
fox  and  the  grapes,  and  so  do  we. 

In  the  matter  of  autographs  the  great  European  libraries  — 
think  of  the  stupendous  collection  of  Bach  autographs  at  the 
Berlin  Royal  Library  —  are  so  immeasurably  ahead  of  us, 
that  to  wrest  a  few  specimens  from  them  on  the  open  market 
would  be  folly.  In  this  respect  our  professional  policy  is 
exactly  the  same  as  expressed  above  as  towards  original  edi¬ 
tions  of  Palestrina.  Yet,  once  the  problems  nearer  us  have 
been  solved,  we  may  perhaps  afford  to  give  expression  to  the 
dictates  of  sentiment  and  acquire  such  autograph  specimens 
in  the  same  spirit  as  an  American  patriot  may  acquire  Wash¬ 
ington  or  Lincoln  souvenirs.  It  is  entirely  different  with  auto¬ 
graphs  of  American  masters.  These  should  be  saved  from 
disappearance  and  destruction  and  the  logical  place  to  pre¬ 
serve  the  manuscripts  of  great  American  musicians  for  future 
scientific  or  tributary  reference  is  the  Library  of  Congress, 
our  National  Library.  That,  however,  cannot  be  accom¬ 
plished  unless  the  American  composers  or  their  heirs  or  pub- 


18 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress  15 

lie-spirited  citizens  concur  in  this  view,  entrust  such  national 
treasures  to  our  care  and  follow  the  example  set  by  Edward 
MacDowell,  Dudley  Buck,  Prof,  and  Mrs.  John  Knowles 
Paine. 

It  is  one  thing  to  have  a  definite  policy,  another  to  carry 
it  out  effectively.  We  had  the  advantage  of  not  being  ham¬ 
pered  by  rigid  traditions,  and  we  could,  therefore,  adopt  con¬ 
structive  methods  of  systematic  development  as  will  always 
suggest  themselves  when  a  good  collection  is  to  be  built  up 
from  the  ground.  The  usual,  one  might  almost  say,  the  old- 
fashioned  method  is  to  patiently  wait  for  and  check  desirable 
items  as  offered  in  the  catalogues  of  publishers  and  second¬ 
hand  dealers.  This  method  is  probably  the  only  feasible 
one  for  new  books  or  new  music.  It  is  even  a  fairly  sen¬ 
sible  one  if  a  collection  is  so  far  advanced  that  the  problem 
merely  is  one  of  filling  in  gaps.  Yet  even  then  the  objection 
is  that  during  the  patient  reliance  on  one’s  good  luck  with 
second-hand  catalogues,  the  gaps  may  become  too  numerous 
for  successful  ultimate  action,  and  that  many  years  may  pass 
before  annoying  gaps  can  be  filled.  In  the  Library  of  Congress 
we,  too,  use  this  passive  method  where  it  may  be  supplied  with 
substantial  results,  but  we  go  far  beyond  it  by  bringing  also  the 
specialist’s  constructive  energies  and  abilities  into  play.  He  is 
supposed  to  know  where  his  collections  require  strengthening 
and  what  books  are  needed  to  make  the  collections  symmetric 
and  of  practical  use  to  the  general  reader  or  scholar,  and  it  is 
part  of  his  business  to  compile  systematic  want  lists  covering 
the  interests  of  his  special  division.  This  is  not  the  work  of  a 
few  months  of  course,  it  takes  years  of  careful  work,  such  as 
only  a  specialist  with  adequate  knowledge  of  his  particular 
subject  may  be  expected  to  undertake.  Moreover,  it  is  fre¬ 
quently  a  very  monotonous  task,  and  perhaps  this  is  one  of 
the  reasons  why  specialists  prefer  the  Pandora  box  of  second¬ 
hand  catalogues.  Naturally  they  do  not  advance  this  mo¬ 
notony  as  their  real  argument  against  the  constructive  method, 
but  they  say  that  such  want  lists  are  of  no  practical  use  in 


1 6 


Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A.,  igo8 


view  of  the  generally  inadequate  appropriation  allotted  to  music 
divisions.  This  is  a  grave  mistake.  Not  even  in  the  Library  of 
Congress  are  such  long  want  lists  acted  upon  at  once,  but  when 
the  Librarian  of  Congress  does  see  his  way  clear  to  switch 
a  substantial  sum  to  the  Music  Division,  we  are  ready  for  the 
campaign  at  a  moment’s  notice.  The  lists  are  then  placed  into 
the  hands  of  reliable  and  energetic  dealers.  It  is  to  their  ad¬ 
vantage,  of  course,  not  only  to  ransack  their  own  stock  for 
report,  but  to  keep  a  sharp  lookout  for  the  things  we  want, 
particularly  for  rarities.  Moreover,  they  can  afford  to  supply 
us  such  large  orders  at  a  very  much  lower  price  than  other¬ 
wise,  and  the  saving  in  clerical  labor,  correspondence,  and 
therefore  expense  of  time  and  money,  is  also  considerable. 

After  all,  the  result  is  the  test  of  any  method,  and  this 
constructive  method  undoubtedly  has  brought  speedier  and 
more  substantial  results  to  our  library  than  would  have  been 
possible  by  the  catalogue-checking  method  alone.  They  repay 
the  specialist  amply  for  the  many  months  of  tedious  toil  in 
compiling  such  want  lists,  that  otherwise  neither  give  the 
personal  satisfaction  which  the  compilation  of  a  catalogue  or 
of  a  bibliography  affords. 

To  give  an  adequate  idea  of  the  extent  of  this  activity,  I 
may  mention  that  a  fairly  complete  list  of  all  the  books  pub¬ 
lished  on  music  before  1800  was  compiled  by  me  for  our  own 
administrative  benefit,  and  a  representative  list  of  such  after 
1800  to  date,  further  systematic  want  lists  of  early  English 
psalm-tune  collections,  orchestral  and  chamber  music  of  all 
nations,  early  vocal  scores  of  operas,  etc.,  etc.  Those  of  last 
year  alone  fill  350  typewritten  pages,  and  many  more  are 
to  come.  Perhaps  the  most  difficult  and  interesting,  though 
one  of  the  smallest,  was  that  compiled  in  the  interest  of  our 
collection  of  full  scores  of  operas.  Realizing  the  impossibility 
of  buying  many  old  opera  scores  on  the  open  market  —  I  mean 
those  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  which,  with 
the  exception  of  the  French,  generally  exist  in  manuscript 
only  —  we  embarked  on  the  project  of  acquiring  the  histori- 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress  i? 


cally  important  operas  of  olden  times  in  transcript  made  spe¬ 
cially  for  the  Library  of  Congress.  This  called  for  much 
painstaking  and  complicated  preliminary  work.  The  idea  is 
not  absolutely  original  with  us,  but  the  scale  —  we  are  reach¬ 
ing  out  in  all  directions  for  several  hundred  transcripts  — 
was  unprecedented.  We  had  the  satisfaction  of  seeing  Prof. 
Kretschmar,  to  whom,  as  the  greatest  living  authority  on  the 
history  of  opera,  the  list  was  submitted,  advise  but  compara¬ 
tively  few  modifications  and  additions. 

All  this  may  create  the  impression  that  the  Music  Division 
of  the  Library  of  Congress  is  working  with  unlimited  means. 
It  is  not.  We  have  a  liberal,  but  limited  allowance  which  the 
Librarian  stretches  if  he  considers  it  to  the  advantge  of  the 
Library.  At  any  rate,  we  are  obliged  to  expend  this  allow¬ 
ance  with  discrimination  and  by  a  strategic  concentration  of 
our  financial  artillery  on  certain  points.  In  other  words,  we 
are  working  along  the  lines  of  carefully  laid  plans  of  develop¬ 
ment  in  a  chronological  backward  direction  and  allow  our¬ 
selves  to  be  swayed  from  this  path  only  in  case  of  emergency. 
These  plans  carry  into  effect  what  I  have  elsewhere  termed 
the  theory  of  concentric  development.  This  means  that  first 
the  nucleus  of  a  library  of  moderate  size  but  complete  in  itself 
was  formed,  what  one  may  call  a  good  working  collection. 
Then  we  drew  a  wider  circle,  and  now  the  circle  which  we  are 
drawing  and  which  is  so  wide  that  it  will  require  years  to  per¬ 
fect  it,  reflects  the  “  duty  of  the  National  Library  to  aid  the 
unusual  need  with  the  unusual  book.” 

On  July  1st,  1908,  the  Music  Division  housed  481,568 
volumes  and  pieces  of  music,  8,020  biographical,  historical, 
etc.,  books  and  pamphlets  on  music,  and  10,990  theoretical  and 
technical  works,  of  which  possibly  4,000  would  be  classified 
elsewhere  with  books  on  music,  in  all  500,587  volumes,  pamph¬ 
lets  and  pieces.  Of  this  huge  collection  naturally  the  bulk 
came  to  us  through  copyright,  during  the  last  six  years  alone 
127,405  items,  the  fiscal  year  1905-6  reaching  the  maximum 
of  25,086.  For  the  past  fiscal  year,  however,  only  13,609  were 


1 3  Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A.,  igo8 

reported,  and  our  accessions  through  copyright  will  not  ex¬ 
ceed  the  last  figure  materially  in  the  future.  This  does  not 
permit  the  inference  that  suddenly  the  actual  number  of  copy¬ 
right  deposits  has  fallen  off.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  keeping 
pace  with  the  development  of  the  music  publishing  business 
in  our  country,  but  the  Music  Division  no  longer  accept  for  its 
files  every  copyrighted  article  as  it  still  did  in  1905-6.  We  now 
weed  out  and  leave  in  the  archives  of  the  Copyright  Office  all 
material  which  plainly  either  has  no  value  whatever,  or  only 
an  ephemeral  value ;  in  short,  what  we  or  any  other  library 
would  unhesitatingly  describe  as  undesirable.  This  material, 
however,  is  not  lost  to  posterity,  as,  with  the  aid  of  the  Cata¬ 
logue  of  Copyright  Entries,  it  may  be  traced  and  even  placed 
before  an  insistent  reader.  That  other  libraries  would  desire 
all  the  material  that  we  do  accept  for  our  files  is  doubtful, 
yet,  given  adequate  appropriations,  I  think  that  they  would 
not  object  to  at  least  one-half  of  what  is  now  considered  de¬ 
sirable  for  the  Music  Division.  This  material  includes  the 
majority  of  European  copyright  deposits,  and  though  of  late 
years  European  music  publishers  unmistakably  seek  to  protect 
very  much  less  of  their  music  in  proportion  to  the  whole  out¬ 
put  than  even  six  years  ago,  thus  forcing  us  to  purchase 
extensively  desirable  current  European  music,  yet  the  interna¬ 
tional  copyright  agreement  of  1891  tends  to  swell  our  collec¬ 
tions  automatically  every  year  with  thousands  of  scores,  songs, 
piano  pieces,  etc.,  that  other  libraries  here  and  in  Europe  are 
compelled  to  buy.  And  this  advantage  will  be  ours  until  the 
rules  governing  copyrights  are  radically  changed.  However, 
the  13,609  items  selected  this  year  from  the  mass  of  copy¬ 
right  deposits  for  the  Music  Division’s  use  do  not  represent 
the  actual  number  of  our  accessions.  They  amounted  to  20,759 
items.  In  other  words,  leaving  aside  gifts  and  exchanges,  we 
purchased  last  year  alone  about  7,000  volumes  of  music  and 
books  on  music,  and  in  1905-6,  when  we  still  accepted  all  copy¬ 
righted  deposits,  our  total  accessions  reached  the  enormous 
figure  of  28,977.  Within  the  last  six  years  we  have  bought 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress  19 

more  than  19,000  items,  ranging  in  commercial  value  from 
twenty-five  cents  to  the  lustily  climbing  market  price  of  Cac- 
cini’s  “  Nuove  Musiche  ”  or  Marco  da  Gagliano’s  “  Dafne 
Keeping  all  this  in  mind  and  taking  a  bird’s-eye  view  of  the 
entire  huge  collection  of  more  than  half  a  million  items,  I 
should  say  that  two-thirds  are  copyrighted  trash  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  musician.  The  other  third  is  at  least  de¬ 
sirable,  and  we  may  safely  estimate  that  at  least  one  hundred 
thousand  items  merit  preservation  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
historian. 

Until  1902  the  Music  Division  depended  for  its  resources 
almost  exclusively  upon  the  double-edged  effects  of  the  copy¬ 
right  deposit  regulations.  Leaving  aside  the  several  thousand 
items  copyrighted  by  European  music  publishers  between  1891 
and  1902,  mostly  music  by  present-day  composers,  therefore, 
very  little  by  the  majority  of  noteworthy  composers  of  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century,  the  collections  until  1902,  generally  speaking, 
represented  only  the  product  of  the  American  press,  either  as 
original  compositions  and  books  on  music  by  Americans,  or  re¬ 
prints  of  European  publications.  Furthermore,  though  music 
copyright  in  our  country  dates  at  least  from  1783,  the  peculiar 
history  of  our  copyright  legislation,  as  it  affects  the  Library  of 
Congress,  and  to  which  I  have  already  briefly  alluded,  accounts 
for  the  fact  that  our  collections  embrace  in  the  main  musical 
products  of  the  American  press  only  from  1819  on.  But  with¬ 
in  these  limits,  while  not  absolutely  complete,  our  collection  of 
American  music  and  books  on  music  by  sheer  force  of  cir¬ 
cumstances  is  and  always  will  be  unique.  The  output  of 
the  last  sixty  years  is  distributed  on  the  shelves  according  to 
our  system  of  classification,  but  that  for  the  thirty  years  pre¬ 
vious  is  preserved  in  300  substantial  volumes  which  have  been 
assigned  a  place  of  honor.  To  my  knowledge  these  300 
volumes  elicited  the  first  newspaper  article  on  our  collection. 
It  appeared  in  the  Washington  Globe ,  November  3d,  1854,  and 
was  from  there  reprinted  in  part  in  Dwight’s  Journal  of  Music , 
November  nth,  1854,  under  the  heading,  “Extraordinary  col- 


20 


Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A igo8 


lection  of  American  Music  “  Recently  arranged  and  neatly 
and  substantially  bound,”  it  was  termed  “  the  most  extra¬ 
ordinary  collection  of  music,  we  suppose,  ever  beheld  in  this 
country  or  perhaps  in  any  other.” 

This  compliment  applies,  of  course,  with  still  greater  force 
to  the  sixty  years  following.  As  to  American  music  or  music 
printed  in  America  previous  to  1819,  it  must  suffice  to  remark 
that  our  collection  of  sacred  music,  principally  the  psalm-tune 
collections,  is  good,  but  probably  not  as  good  as  the  Hubert 
Main  collection  in  the  Newberry  Library  in  Chicago,  or  the 
James  Warrington  collection  now  under  Prof.  Pratt’s  care, 
and  not  better  than  those  at  Yale,  Worcester  and  elsewhere. 
Nor  have  we  much  reason  to  boast  of  our  early  secular 
American  music.  Our  only  consolation  is,  that  no  really  com¬ 
prehensive  collection  of  the  kind  exists  anywhere,  and  prob¬ 
ably  cannot  be  formed  at  this  late  date,  because,  through  neg¬ 
ligence,  ignorance  and  natural  forces  of  destruction,  most  of 
this  music  has  entirely  disappeared.  It  is  easier  to  find  medie¬ 
val  codices  than  the  compositions  of  Francis  Hopkinson  or 
Alexander  Reinagle  and  other  American  worthies  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  True,  they  arouse  more  or  less  only  a 
patriotic  antiquarian  interest,  but  it  is  exactly  this  purely 
American  point  of  view  which  defines  their  importance  in  our 
National  Library.  Thus,  when  the  late  Mr.  Lewis  J.  Davis 
presented  some  autograph  sonatas  of  his  ancestor  Reinagle  to 
us,  we  rejoiced  more  than  if  they  had  been  autographs  of  some 
composers  like  Hasse  or  Galuppi.  Similarly,  the  autograph 
scores  of  MacDowell’s  “  Indian  Suite  ”,  Dudley  Buck’s  opera 
“  Serapis  ”,  Paine’s  unfinished  symphonic  poem  “  Lincoln  ”, 
appeal  to  us  quite  as  fully  as  would  to  a  European  librarian  im¬ 
portant  autograph  scores  by  Tchaikovsky,  Brahms  or  Cesar 
Franck.  And  again,  the  musical  by-products  of  the  Civil  War 
would  hardly  be  deemed  attractive  abroad,  yet  in  our  country 
their  patriotic  associations  give  them  a  distinct  value  regard¬ 
less  of  the  question  of  musical  merit.  For  instance,  the  first 
edition  of  “  Dixie  ”,  by  dint  of  its  scarcity  and  the  spell  the 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress  21 

stirring  melody  casts  over  all  good  Americans,  is  a  treasure 
from  our  point  of  view  immeasurably  more  precious  than  the 
first  edition,  let  me  say,  of  “  Die  Wacht  am  Rhein  ”,  or  the 
Garibaldi  Hymn.  Of  these  by-products  of  the  Civil  War 
period,  we  possess  probably  by  far  the  most  important  collec¬ 
tion,  and  if  we  succeeded  in  rescuing  much  of  the  Southern 
musical  ammunition,  which  was  not  copyrighted  here,  and  for 
this  and  other  reasons  has  become  very  rare,  it  is  largely  due 
to  my  assistant,  Mr.  Whittlesey’s,  familiarity  with  this  type  of 
publications. 

Before  1902  the  Library  of  Congress  possessed  ludicrously 
few  European  publications,  whether  music  or  books  on  music. 
European  music  copyrighted  since  1891,  some  old  English 
song  collections,  a  few  odds  and  ends  of  mysterious  pro¬ 
venience,  including  a  pityfully  lonesome  edition  of  Beethoven’s 
symphonies,  that  was  about  all.  It  would  have  been  absolutely 
impossible  to  study  here  with  profit  the  music  of  even  the 
greatest  masters.  A  vast  desert  wherever  one  looked  beyond 
the  comparatively  narrow  boundaries  of  the  American  press. 
We  have  had  but  six  years  to  remedy  this  frightful  state  of 
affairs.  It  is,  therefore,  only  fair  that  our  efforts  be  judged  in 
the  light  of  this  fact.  We  are  not  given  to  megalomania. 
Neither  are  we  the  victims  of  the  equally  obnoxious  habit  of 
micromania.  We  know  better  than  any  casual  observer  pos¬ 
sibly  could  know  where  the  shoe  pinches  us.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  no  longer  discourage  comparison  with  the  most 
famous  institutions  of  the  Old  World. 

Remarkable,  in  some  respect  unsurpassed,  as  our  resources 
have  suddenly  become,  they  are  not  yet  what  our  plans  of  de¬ 
velopment  are  bound  to  make  them  within  a  few  years.  Hence 
the  expert  will  find  a  certain  lack  of  symmetry  in  the  branches 
of  the  collection.  Some  are  fully  developed,  others  not  yet 
so.  Hence  to  judge  the  merits  and  defects  of  our  present  col¬ 
lections  calls  for  the  same  attitude  of  mind  as  in  viewing  a 
half  finished  monumental  building.  For  instance,  our  collection 
of  national  songs  and  their  literature,  while  substantial  enough 


22 


Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A.,  igo8 


for  a  good  working  library,  is  not  what  we  expect  to  make  it. 
Similarly,  our  collection  of  vocal  scores  of  oratorios,  cantatas, 
even  operas,  organ  music,  and  so  forth,  will  be  strengthened  so 
considerably  in  the  near  future  as  to  be  in  keeping  with  our 
fully  developed  sections.  Then  again,  only  during  the  last 
two  or  three  years  have  we  found  it  convenient  to  turn  our  am¬ 
bition  to  eighteenth  century  music.  Though  probably  we  al¬ 
ready  have  more  of  this  than  may  be  found  in  other  American 
libraries,  the  collection  could  not  bear  a  moment’s  comparison, 
for  example,  with  that  at  the  Royal  Library  of  Berlin.  Still, 
it  is  growing  rapidly  into  something  really  useful  to  the  his¬ 
torian,  and  we  already  possess  quite  a  few  things,  particularly 
in  manuscript  and  of  English  imprint,  that  are  not  frequently 
found.  We  appear  to  have,  for  instance,  some  symphonies  by 
that  master  of  the  strange  epicurian  tastes,  Anton  Filtz,  not 
mentioned  in  Riemann’s  bibliography.  We  have  about  thirty 
of  the  forty-five  cembalo  concerts  of  Carl  Ph.  Em.  Bach,  and 
we  were  able  to  supply  some  of  Haydn’s  unpublished  Diverti- 
menti  to  the  editors  of  the  complete  edition  of  his  works  now 
in  process  of  publication. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  collection  of  old  opera  and  oratorio 
librettos  is  painfully  weak,  yet  without  these  the  student  of 
early  opera  and  oratorio  will  always  find  himself  handicapped.* 
Furthermore,  our  collection  of  music  printed  or  in  manuscript 
before  1700,  does  not  deserve  to  be  called  a  collection.  In  fact, 
we  have  little  of  this  kind,  unless  printed  in  English  or 
reprinted.  For  the  reasons  stated,  we  do  not  attempt  to 
waste  our  energy  and  funds  in  that  direction,  nor  on  auto¬ 
graphs  of  great  musicians  of  which  we  possess  mostly  such 
only  as  come  incidentally  in  dedication  copies.  Finally,  not 
even  the  original  editions  of  the  works  of  Bach,  Mozart,  Bee¬ 
thoven,  etc.,  so  important  for  text-critical  and  editorial  pur¬ 
poses  are  numerous.  Until  recently  we  contented  ourselves 

*  It  is  characteristic  of  the  speed  of  onr  development  that  these  words,  written 
in  October,  are  now  absolutely  incorrect.  Not  only  did  the  acquisition  oftheLonge 
collection  of  old  English  plays  enrich  us  by  several  hundred  early  English  opera 
librettos,  but  the  Library  of’ .Congress  has  also  since  acquired  the  famous  Albert 
Schatz  collection  of  more  than  n,ooo  librettos -presumably  the  largest  collection  of 
its  kind. 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress  23 


with  their  works  in  the  “  Gesammt  Ausgaben  ”,  but  we  are 
now  gradually  going  back  to  the  original  editions.  In  this  con¬ 
nection,  it  is  significant  that  not  a  single  library  exists  that 
may  boast  of  complete  sets  of  the  works  of  our  classics  in  the 
original  editions. 

These,  and  others,  are  our  defects  and  weaknesses,  tem¬ 
porary  or  intentional,  if  the  single  branches  of  our  collection 
are  compared  with  each  other,  or  if  our  collection,  as  a  whole, 
is  compared  with  other  collections  of  corresponding  magnitude 
and  scope.  Fortunately  we  have  our  strong  points,  too,  and 
strong  not  only  in  plan  but  in  fact. 

The  figures  for  our  books  on  music  speak  for  themselves, 
yet  it  may  be  added  that  we  are  particularly  strong  in  bio¬ 
graphical  and  general  historical  literature  and  in  current  peri¬ 
odicals.  With  the  orders  already  placed,  it  is  merely  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  weeks  or  months  until  the  Library  of  Congress  may 
point  to  a  collection  of  books  on  music  surpassed  only  in  very 
few  directions.  Unprecedented  has  been  the  accumulation  of 
books  on  music  printed  before  1800.  When  Mr.  Krehbiel 
compiled  his  valuable  article  on  American  libraries  for  the  new 
Grove,  we  still  had  reason  to  send  him  conservative  informa¬ 
tion.  The  volume  was  published  in  1906,  and  already  the  in¬ 
formation  concerning  us  is  entirely  out  of  date.  Mr.  Krehbiel, 
when  dealing  with  the  Lenox  Library,  took  occasion  to  remark 
that  their  moderately  trustworthy  catalogue  of  1869  contains 
12  volumes  of  the  sixteenth  century  musical  publications,  48 
of  the  seventeenth  and  483  of  the  eighteenth.  He  does  not 
make  it  clear  whether  or  no  he  alludes  to  books  on  music  or 
music  and  books.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  this  collection  has 
been  very  materially  increased  since  then.  However,  the  Li¬ 
brary  of  Congress  now  possesses  eleven  hundred  books  on 
music  alone,  not  volumes,  but  different  books,  and  of  these 
about  70  belong  to  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  200 
to  the  seventeenth  and  800  to  the  eighteenth  century.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  my  estimate  this  is  about  one-third  of  all  the  books  on 
music  printed  before  1800,  not  counting  different  editions  or 


24 


Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A .,  igo8 


translations  into  other  than  the  English  language.  If  it  is 
considered  that  many  of  the  books  or  pamphlets,  such  as  most 
of  the  queer  Latin  dissertations  and  orations  on  music,  are  not 
worth  having,  and  that  many  others  have  entirely  disappeared, 
our  collection  will  be  conceded  to  be  already  quite  extraor¬ 
dinary,  indeed  equal  to  those  at  Bologna,  London,  Brussels, 
Berlin  or  elsewhere.  Otherwise  the  bibliographical  committee 
of  the  I.  M.  G.  for  the  revision  of  Eitner’s  Quellen-Lexi- 
kon,  would  hardly  have  agreed  to  accept  our  printed  cards  as 
the  practical  basis  for  their  work.  The  exhibit  made  in  honor 
of  your  meeting  in  Washington  fortunately  relieves  me  of  the 
necessity  of  letting  special  works  by  Tovar,  Aaron,  Gaffurius, 
Cerone,  Glarean,  Ornithoparchus,  Luscinius,  Koswick,  Guer- 
son,  Jumilhac,  de  Caus,  Lord  North,  Tapia,  Mersenne,  Simp¬ 
son,  Locke  and  many  other  early  theoreticians  pass  review 
here  by  title. 

These  old  timers  will  always  interest  the  theoretician  and 
the  antiquarian  more  than  the  practitioner,  to  whom  they  gen¬ 
erally  appeal  not  as  sources  of  historical  information,  but  as 
curiosities.  However,  the  practitioner,  too,  may  now  venture 
on  a  “  Studienreise  ”  to  Washington  without  being  disap¬ 
pointed.  By  practitioner  I  mean  the  performer,  the  conductor, 
the  critic  whose  interests  are  centered  in  the  present  and  last 
century.  This  modern  music  may  now  be  found  in  the  Library 
of  Congress,  regardless  of  country  and  school,  in  a  more  ex¬ 
haustive  representation  than  in  any  other  institution,  American 
or  European,  except  possibly  one.  As  I  am  familiar  with  the 
resources  of  the  most  important  collections  here  and  abroad, 
this  statement  is  not  an  idle  boast.  It  is  a  fact.  The  exception 
made  refers  to  the  “  Deutsche  Musiksammlung  ”  at  Berlin, 
the  result  of  a  very  clever  idea  of  Prof.  Dr.  Altmann,  who 
actually  succeeded  in  persuading  a  large  number  of  music  pub¬ 
lishers  of  all  countries  to  deposit  at  Berlin,  free  of  charge,  the 
issues  of  their  firms,  some  running  back  a  hundred  years  or 
more.  How  far  this  appeal  to  the  generosity  of  the  music  pub¬ 
lishers  has  carried  Prof.  Altmann,  is  not  yet  fully  known,  but 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress  25 

that  it  has  placed  the  “  Deutsche  Musiksammlung  ”,  an  annex 
to  the  Royal  Library  collections,  hors  de  concours  in  many  re¬ 
spects,  particularly  with  reference  to  modern  German  music, 
cannot  be  doubted.  We  could  rely  on  the  generosity  of  the 
European  music  publishers  only  in  so  far  as  they  were  willing 
to  grant  a  substantial  reduction  of  price  on  wholesale  orders. 
This  enabled  us  to  acquire  a  collection  of  modern  music, 
whether  German,  Russian,  French,  English,  Italian,  Bohe¬ 
mian,  Scandinavian,  etc.,  that  is  sufficiently  complete  for  all 
practical  purposes.  The  more  important  a  composer,  the  more 
numerous,  of  course,  his  compositions  are  here  represented, 
and  we  have  not  permitted  personal  predilections  to  interfere 
in  the  least  with  the  application  of  this  principle.  The  Ameri¬ 
can  student  who  desires  to  study  or  write  on  the  art  of  promi¬ 
nent  composers  of  the  nineteenth  century,  no  longer  need  para¬ 
phrase  what  he  finds  in  articles  or  books  and  certainly  need 
not  travel  to  Europe.  The  fullest  opportunity  is  given  him 
here  to  base  his  observations  on  the  works  themselves,  thereby 
facilitating  original  comment.  To  mention  names  might  not 
be  necessary  before  a  congress  of  musicians,  but  just  as  an 
illustration  of  the  variety  of  our  resources  in  this  respect  it 
may  be  of  interest  to  know  that  we  possess  practically  all  or 
the  majority  of  the  printed  works  of  such  major  and  minor 
masters  as  Brahms,  Raff,  Rubinstein,  Draeseke,  Kiel,  Rhein- 
berger,  von  Herzogenberg,  Jensen,  Kirchner,  Bruckner,  Wolf, 
Richard  Strauss,  Reger,  Liszt,  Volkmann,  Smetana,  Dvorak, 
Fibich,  Gounod,  Saint-Saens,  Franck,  Lalo,  Massenet,  Lefebvre, 
Boisdeffre,  dTndy,  Debussy,  Benoit,  Lekeu,  Glinka,  Balakirew, 
Tschaikovsky,  Rimsky-Korsakow,  Arensky,  Scriabine,  Rach- 
maninow,  Moussorgsky,  J.  P.  E.  and  Emil  Hartmann,  Gade, 
Grieg,  Sinding,  Sjoegren,  Stenhammar,  Peterson-Berger,  Niel¬ 
sen,  Sibelius,  Parry,  Mackenzie,  Stanford,  Coleridge-Taylor, 
Elgar,  Bantock,  Delius,  etc.,  etc.  These  and  other  masters  form 
the  pillars  of  our  collection  of  what  may  be  called  current  music. 
Around  these  pillars  we  have,  of  course,  built  up  a  sufficient 
representation  of  the  art  of  such  composers  as  have  not  visibly 


2  6 


Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A.,  igo8 


influenced  the  current  of  music  but  in  their  best  and  ripest  work 
approach  the  level  of  real  merit,  at  least  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  historian.  In  certain  directions  we  have  not  quite  per¬ 
fected  the  scheme,  but  as  concerns,  for  instance,  orchestral 
music  in  score,  we  have  now  practically  reached  our  goal. 

The  best  I  have  reserved  for  the  last.  It  is  our  collection 
of  full  scores  of  Dramatic  Music.  The  best,  though  it  by  no 
means  yet  exhausts  our  ambitions.  In  the  prefatory  note  to 
the  printed  catalogue  the  chief  difficulties  were  recorded  that 
confront  every  collector  of  this  type  of  material.  One  of  these 
difficulties  is  the  great  and  sometimes  prohibitive  cost  of 
opera  scores,  another  the  fact  that  many  important  old  operas 
were  never  printed,  are  preserved  only  in  a  few  libraries  in 
autograph  or  contemporary  manuscript  copies  which  rarely  if 
ever  appear  on  the  market;  a  third  difficulty,  the  stubborn 
refusal  of  certain  publishers  to  sell  their  opera  scores  to  li¬ 
braries,  and  a  fourth  the  still  more  stubborn  refusal  of  certain 
unavoidable  libraries  to  permit  the  copying  of  ol^  opera  scores. 
This  last  difficulty  interferes  annoyingly  with  our  project  de¬ 
scribed  above,  to  acquire  old  operas  in  special  transcripts. 
Still,  we  are  beginning  to  see  daylight.  The  transcripts  made 
at  the  libraries  which  treat  us  in  a  spirit  of  professional  cour¬ 
tesy,  are  accumulating  rapidly,  and  it  is  merely  a  question  of 
a  few  years  until  our  collection  of  old,  unprinted  operas  will 
symmetrically  represent  the  art  of  composing  operas  in  the 
seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries.  The  acquisition  of  the 
comparatively  few  printed  operas  of  the  seventeenth  century 
depends  on  a  combination  of  funds,  luck  and  circumstances. 
One  may  aspire  to  Peri’s  “  Eurydice  ”  in  the  original,  but  its 
possession  depends  entirely  on  these  three  factors,  and  it  is 
even  a  question  if  a  public  institution  like  ours  may  not  prefer 
comparatively  cheap  photographic  reproductions  to  the  very 
costly  originals. 

The  third  difficulty  enumerated  above  explains  why  we  do 
not  yet  possess  such  full  scores  as  that  of  Lalo’s  “  Roi  d’Ys  ”, 
Nessler’s  “  Trompeter  von  Sackingen  ”,  Pfitzner’s  “  Rose  vom 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress 

Liebesgarten  ”,  or  Mascagni’s  “  Cavalleria  rusticana  In  al¬ 
most  every  instance  of  this  kind  we  made  heroic  efforts  to 
place  the  scores  before  the  American  musician,  but  we  failed, 
and  we  certainly  were  warranted  in  breaking  off  negotiations, 
if  the  offer  was  accompanied  by  restrictive  conditions  which 
the  Library  of  Congress  could  not  with  dignity  accept.  Fi¬ 
nally,  we  were  powerless  if  the  scores  of  well  known  modern 
operas  had  never  been  published,  if  the  manuscripts  had  disap¬ 
peared  entirely,  or  if  they  were  in  private  hands. 

Viewed  in  the  light  of  these  difficulties  and  obstacles  every 
impartial  expert  will  admit  that  it  is  a  unique  collection,  at 
least  of  modern  operas,  and  that  it  bids  fair  to  become  the 
most  evenly  developed  center  of  research  known.  You  may 
not  find  at  present,  for  instance,  more  than  perhaps  six  operas 
by  Scarlatti  instead  of  thirty  or  forty,  but  on  the  other  hand 
you  will  find  thirty  or  forty  and  more  composers  represented 
by  their  best  works  who1  do  not  figure  in  other  libraries  at 
all.  Furthermore,  the  collection  is  not  restricted  to  a  few 
nations,  but  is  international  to  an  unprecedented  extent,  as 
a  comparison  of  our  catalogue  with  other  catalogues  will  prove. 
On  this  fact  we  of  the  Library  of  Congress  lay  by  far  greater 
stress  than  on  the  possession  of  single  rarities  as,  for  instance, 
Marco  da  Gagliano’s  “  Dafne  ”,  Vitali’s  “  Aretusa  ”,  Rinaldo 
da  Capua’s  “  La  Bohemienne  ”,  Dargom j  schky’s  “  Rusalka  ”, 
Verdi’s  “  Falstaff  ”,  Dukas’  “  Ariane  et  Barbe-Bleue  ”,  Mus- 
sorgski’s  “  Boris  Godunow  ”,  “  The  new  ”  Rienzi  of  Wagner, 
Cesar  Franck’s  “  Hulda  ”,  “  Debussy’s  “  Pelleas  et  Melisande  ”, 
Schilling’s  Pfeifertag  ”,  Strauss’  “  Salome  ”,  or  the  autographs 
score  of  Cyrill  Kistler’s  “  Kunihild  All  this  may  be  more 
or  less  my  private  opinion,  but  it  surely  signifies  something 
in  support  of  it,  if  Dr.  Ideuss  in  a  review  of  our  printed  cata¬ 
logue  intimates  that  at  some  future  date  the  historian  of  opera 
may  more  profitably  undertake  a  journey  to  Washington  than 
gather  his  information  from  all  corners  of  Europe.  It  is, 
furthermore,  a  fact  that  Mr.  J.  E.  Matthew,  certainly  an 
authority  among  collectors,  claims  that  already  only  one  col- 


28 


Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A.,  igo8 


lection,  that  at  the  Royal  Conservatory  in  Brussels,  compares 
with  ours,  and  another  authority,  Mr.  Henry  de  Curzon  does 
not  even  extend  this  courtesy  to  Brussels.  Possibly  these  com¬ 
pliments  are  a  trifle  exaggerated,  but  they  were  based  on  our 
catalogue  printed  early  in  1908,  and  since  then  we  have  ac¬ 
quired  about  three  hundred  additional  scores,  thus  enabling 
the  American  musician  to  study  at  the  Library  of  Congress 
about  sixteen  hundred  operas  in  score. 

This,  then,  is  a  candid  statement  of  our  relative  strength 
and  weakness.  Even  in  our  best  developed  sections  gaps  will 
be  found  —  I  find  them  every  week  and  not  always  such  as 
could  not  have  been  avoided  —  yet  the  critical  visitor  may  in 
fairness  be  expected  to  remember  that  we  accomplished  what 
has  been  accomplished  in  six  years,  and  that  this  is  too  short 
a  period  for  the  display  of  dainty  filigree  work. 

Another  parting  remark!  If  ever  the  musical  profession 
comes  to  a  full  appreciation  of  what  is  being  done  in  the  Li¬ 
brary  of  Congress,  may  it  not  forget  that  the  efforts  of  the 
specialist  would  have  been  wholly  futile  without  the  liberal, 
broad-minded  attitude  of  the  chief  of  the  chiefs  toward  our 
art,  Mr.  Herbert  Putnam.  And  finally,  though  the  Library  of 
Congress  may  be  predestined  to  stand  in  a  class  by  itself,  we 
should  not  forget  that  there  exist  other  fine  collections  in 
America.  Not  nearly  as  large  as  ours  and  no  longer  so  im¬ 
portant,  the  collections  at  the  Lenox  Library  in  New  York,  the 
Newberry  in  Chicago  and  the  Boston  Public,  with  which  Mr. 
Allen  A.  Brown’s  name  is  so  indelibly  associated,  would  hold 
an  honorable  place  in  any  country,  and  each  of  these  institu¬ 
tions,  by  the  way,  may  point  to  treasures  which  now  and  for 
all  time  will  help  the  Library  of  Congress  to  remember  that 
spiteful  little  fable  of  the  fox  and  the  grapes. 


The  Music  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress  29 


THE  MUSIC  EXHIBIT 
AT  THE  LIBRARY  OF  CONGRESS 

The  Exhibition  of  Music  and  Books  on  Music  was  set 
forth  in  the  main  exhibition  hall  of  the  Library,  and  filled  six 
of  the  large  double  show-cases.  Though  arranged  primarily 
in  honor  of  the  meeting  of  the  M.  T.  N.  A.,  it  is  to  remain 
open  for  several  months. 

The  exhibit  was  arranged  in  the  following  groups :  — 

I.  Full  Scores  of  Rare  Operas ,  old  and  modern,  —  such 
as  Marco  da  Gagliano’s  Dafne ,  1608;  Lesueur’s  Alexandre  a 
Babylon ;  Bizet’s  Carmen;  Verdi’s  Falstaff ;  Scarlatti’s 
Trionfo  dell’onore,  1718;  Bishop’s  Ninetta  (autograph); 
Lawes’  Psyche;  Portugal’s  Demofoonte ,  1808  (autograph)  ; 
Kistler’s  Kunihild  (autograph)  ;  Jomelli’s  L’  Artaserse,  1750 
(specimen  of  transcripts  made  for  the  Library)  ;  Debussy’s 
Pelleas  et  Melisande;  Strauss’  Salome. 

II.  Music  in  General,  old  and  modern  —  such  as  Dou- 
land’s  “Musical  Banquet,”  1610;  “Comes  Amoris,”  1687-94; 
“Bird  Fancyer’s  Delight,”  17 — ;  Este’s  “Whole  Booke  of 
Psalmes,”  1604;  Marcello’s  “  II  Pianto  e  il  Riso  delle  quattro 
Staggioni,”  1731  (supposedly  unknown  to  bibliographers)  ; 
Caccini’s  “  Nuove  musiche,”  1601 ;  Hasse’s  Credo  (auto¬ 
graph)  ;  Couperin’s  “Pieces  de  clavecin,”  1713;  Filtz’s  Sym¬ 
phony  in  A  major  (not  mentioned  by  Riemann)  ;  C.  Ph. 
Em.  Bach’s  Cembalo  concerto  in  E  minor  (unpublished)  ; 
Haydn’s  Divertimento  (unpublished)  ;  Herzogenberg’s  “  Ern- 
tefeier  ”  (unpublished  score)  ;  Verdi’s  Requiem;  original  edi¬ 
tions  of  famous  works  by  Beethoven,  Schubert,  etc. ;  the  Jena 
Liederhandbuch,  1896,  and  similar  specimens  of  photographic 
fac-similes. 


30 


Proceedings  —  M.  T.  N.  A.,  igo8 


III.  Americana,  old  and  modern,  (a)  Original  editions 

of  famous  Civil  War  songs,  such  as  “  Dixie,”  i860;  ( b ) 
Early  editions  of  national  songs,  etc.,  like  “  Yankee  Doodle,” 
“  Liberty  Song,”  Billings’  “  Chester,”  “  President’s  March  ” 
(“Hail,  Columbia”),  “Jefferson’s  March,”  “The  Star-Span¬ 
gled  Banner”  (including  “The  Anacreontick  Song”  in  John 
Stafford  Smith’s  Fifth  Book  of  Canzonets,  circa  1780), 
Reinagle’s  “  Federal  March,”  1788  (supposedly  the  only  copy 
extant)  ;  (c)  Such  rarities  as  the  illuminated  Ephrata 

Hymn  Book,  1746,  Lyon’s  “  Urania,”  1762,  Flagg’s  “  Collec¬ 
tion  of  the  Best  Psalm  Tunes,”  1764,  Billings’  “  New  Eng¬ 
land  Psalm  Singer,”  1770,  autograph  sonatas  by  Reinagle, 
“  Military  Glory  of  Great  Britain,”  1762,  autograph  letters 
of  Francis  Hopkinson  to  Thomas  Jefferson;  ( d )  More  mod¬ 
ern  Americana,  like  the  original  edition  of  Foster’s  “  Old 
Folks  at  Home,”  1851,  Gottschalk’s  “Last  Hope”  (showing 
contrast  between  first  two  issues),  MacDowell’s  “Marion¬ 
ettes  ”  (showing  contrast  between  editions  of  1888  and  1901), 
MacDowell’s  “Indian  Suite”  (autograph),  Dudley  Buck’s 
Golden  Legend  (autograph),  Paine’s  unfinished  tone-poem 
“Lincoln”  (autograph). 

IV.  Old  Books  about  Music  (about  seventy  examples, 
mostly  from  the  16th  century)  —  such  as  Aaron’s  “  Lucidario,” 
1545,  Bonaventura  da  Brescia’s  “  Regula  musice  plane,”  1513, 
Gaffurio’s  “  Practica  musicae,”  1496,  and  his  “  Apologia,”  1520, 
Glareanus’  “  Dodekachordon,”  1547  (unique  copy,  containing 
errata,  etc.,  in  author’s  autograph),  Hugo  von  Reutlingen’s 
“Flores  musices,”  1488,  Lossius’  “  Erotemata,”  1563,  Or- 
nithoparcus’  “  Micrologus,”  1517,  Tovar’s  “  Libro  de  musica 
pratica,”  1510,  De  Caus’  “  Institution  harmonique,”  1615,, 
Lord  North’s  “  Philosophical  Essay,”  1677,  Cerone’s  “  El 
Melopeo  y  Maestro,”  1613,  John  IV.  of  Portugal’s  “  Difesa 
della  Musica  Moderna,”  1666,  Mace’s  “  Musick’s  Monument,” 
1676,  Tate’s  “  Essay,”  1710,  Le  Blanc’s  “  Defense  de  la  Basse 
de  Viole,”  1740,  Sibire’s  “  La  Chelonomie,”  1806. 


jKjj 

£  ; 

/ 

If  1R. 

wf MV 

ja[|j 

;;4 

/  M  \ 

f!; 

M\ 

^jj\ 

&Jj  , 

r 

l  f 

J-- 

,v^w 

Wj\ 

m 

"  J 

Wjk 

< 

| 

4 

^ii 

/  rjMi 

V  j 

[ 

r 

\X\  j 

^// 1 

p^JII 

P 

H 

J 

./' 

m 

Y/M 

k  J 

irr 

5^8 

pf 

jrf 

f  ^ 

VN'  .‘J^M 

.-i 

j 

pf'J] 

-7.JI 

\^i 

/  " 

f' 

^  sdw! 

f  ; 

>  ^ 

r^m 

\lrm 

t 

V 

1 

.  ^ 

•  H 

!i:  1 

i 

r  ''’ 

vOvkll 

f'Jm\ 

SI 

! 

fl 

\nm 

k 

Wl\ 

/z  ii 

pT 

life 

f^rl/i 

r^| 

~ 

M 

fl 

r^l 

/  J 

.4 

WK 

1  rM 
W  M 

Vnj, 

m 

"•  * 

m 

llrfk 

;.</  pffl 

S^vi 

wJfl 

iL  - 

#  - 

w  •ntt 1 

t  'it 

v  J 

fP\ 

r* 

ife 

iKi 

. 

J 

B 

;'  * 

v\ 

;  7 

-•SiJ 

i  1//A 

!/^| 

. 

wtfdj 

i 

0 

I1/  A 

f J 

;,/J 

!\vjk 

ypj 

M 

P^r 

ilFjj 

1 

V^A  1 

S| 

k. 

gf 

.-■aj 

1 

/7 

|V  \ 

| '  ,  r 

rSi 

0 

h 

:  /r%M 

fl 

ivO\ 

'  1 

•  1 

'  1 

M/^S 

|g 

’  <,'M. 

#  -'; 

| rW: 

i  //^3 

If  M 

iv  ■ 

'  1 

fe-- 

;p1 

N1' 

wL-^' 

\\j/  /m 

' 

j//  J 

M 

WJj 

'v: '  J 

S’ 

- 

m&Ses 

,;4;^ 

V^i 

,//r 

,  7jr-\ 

i 

^  • 

M 

. 

w  y 

PM 

■  *  * 

\jff  M 

ii 

f  - , 

\i 

Bg 

\0 

HI 

y\ 

-  ' 

U/  \m 

0 

m  j 

jl  7 

/  ' 

'■  | 

\\ji'  m 

V 

]K^ 

* 

\  ^ 

h 

i/'  A 

!!^ 

1  /3* 

ws&n 

/^jjj 

jL 

,,'  ' 

r^S 

L  ' 

1 '  •  i 

r 

:  \ 

L  1 

fl I  \S  j 

/ 

JL  ' 

j  ■ ' 

i. 

\Ov 

V7 

il 

r^s 

f 

Iftyi 

W 

/^=P! 

* 

;"  ’1 

t* 

**  \ 

:  .; 

/ 

f.  - 

Wmf^‘ 

\rj 

. 

uJt 

w 

xjj^/i 

± 

jL 

1 

1  p-^l 

;  v  •;■ 

;  1 

J  ! 

m  J/ 

",  ■ 

' 

f.= 

1  1 

mm 

